Externe

zokibis
2006-01-16 23:02:30

CNN si razboiul

Imi amintesc ca in 1999 a zburat CNN din Serbia si apoi a inceput razboiul. La fel a fost in 2003 in Irak. Urmeaza razboiul, fratilor si ma tem ca de data asta nu vom mai sta doar in tribune, ca in '99 si '03. Dar poate mai e cale de intors si nu ne indreptam spre cataclism...

roy
2006-01-16 23:16:08

Re: CNN si razboiul

GiulestiWarrior
2006-01-16 23:31:56

Re: CNN si razboiul

romanul
2006-01-16 23:46:47

Daca nu lua astfel de masuri Iranul, nimeni n-ar fi aflat de manipularea prin "traducere" a CNN-ului...

Daca nu lua astfel de masuri Iranul, nimeni n-ar fi aflat de manipularea prin "traducere" a CNN-ului...

zokibis
2006-01-16 23:50:28

Re: CNN si razboiul

Iti doresc Roy-ule sa fi in linia INTAI! Aia care pleaca de la Kogalniceanu! Ca de chibit vad ca esti bun...

zwilling carol
2006-01-16 23:57:42

Re: CNN si razboiul//trecem la Islam si va fi Pace,doar ti-a spus Pr.Iranului??!!

Morkova Vesela
2006-01-17 00:32:04

E clar, sunt f putine sanse sa vedem la Tv pe CNN bombardarea Teheranului. Dar cum eu ma mai uit si la NBC si BBC

atunci ne vad nici un inconvenient, singura problema ar fi sa nu le dea un hotel suficient de inalt, caci imaginile panoramice sunt mult mai reprezentative in ce priveste mersul evenimentelor.

Oriana
2006-01-17 02:18:24

trecem la Islam si va fi Pace, doar ti-a spus Pr. Iranului??!!

Oriana
2006-01-17 02:28:36

Re: E clar, sunt f putine sanse sa vedem la Tv pe CNN bombardarea Teheranului. Dar cum eu ma mai uit si la NBC si BBC

bz
2006-01-17 03:25:16

Re: trecem la Islam si va fi Pace, doar ti-a spus Pr. Iranului??!!

Dan Bostan
2006-01-17 04:06:08

Din "The Telegraph", ziar britanic

Let's Give Iran Some Of Its Own Medicine (Mark Steyn)
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 1-17-2006 | Mark Steyn

Let's give Iran some of its own medicine

By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 17/01/2006)

So let me see. On the one hand, we have a regime that is pressing full steam ahead with its nuclear programme and whose president has threatened to wipe another sovereign state off the map.

And, on the other side of the negotiations, we have Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Jack Straw has been at pains to emphasise that no military action against Iran is being contemplated by him or anybody else, but in a sign that he's losing patience with the mullahs Mr Straw's officials have indicated that they're prepared to consider the possibility of possibly considering the preparation of a possible motion on sanctions for the UN Security Council to consider the possibility of considering.

But don't worry, we're not escalating this thing any more than necessary. Initially, the FCO is considering "narrowly targeted sanctions such as a travel ban on Iranian leaders".

That'll show 'em: Iranian missiles may be able to leave Iranian airspace, but the deputy trade minister won't. No more trips to Paris for the spring collections or skiing in Gstaad for the A-list ayatollahs.

Needless to say, the German deputy foreign minister, Gernot Erler, has already cautioned that this may be going too far, and that sanctions could well hurt us more than it hurts the Iranians. Perhaps this is what passes is for a good cop/bad cop routine, with Herr Erler affably suggesting to the punks that they might want to cooperate or he'll have to send his pal Jack in to tear up their tickets for the Michael Moore première at the Cannes Film Festival.

But, if I were President Ahmadinejad or the wackier ayatollahs, I'd be mulling over the kid glove treatment from Jack Straw and Co and figuring: wow, if this is the respect we get before the nukes are fully operational, imagine how they'll be treating us this time next year. Incidentally, the assumption in the European press that the nuclear payload won't be ready to fly for three or four years is laughably optimistic.

So any Western strategy that takes time is in the regime's favour. After all, President Ahmaggedonouttahere's formative experience was his participation in the seizure of the US embassy in Teheran in 1979. I believe it was Andrei Gromyko who remarked that, if the students had pulled the same stunt at the Soviet embassy, Teheran would have been a crater by lunchtime.

So what can be done? Right now, Iran can count on at least two Security Council vetoes against any meaningful action by the "international community". As for the unilaterally inclined, the difficulty for the US and Israel is that there's really no Osirak-type resolution of the problem - a quick surgical strike, in and out. By most counts, there are upwards of a couple of hundred potential sites spread across a wide range of diverse terrain, from remote mountain fastnesses to residential suburbs.

To neutralise them all would require a sustained bombing campaign lasting several weeks, and with the usual collateral damage at schools, hospitals, etc, plastered all over CNN and the BBC. Meanwhile, Iraq's Shia south would turn into another Sunni Triangle for coalition forces. Every challenge to the West begins as a contest of wills - and for the Iranians recent history, from the Shah and the embassy siege to the Iraqi "insurgency" and Mr Straw's soundbites, tells them the West can't muster the strength of will needed to force them to back down.

But, granted the Iranian destabilisation of Iraq and their sponsorship of terror groups in Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, surely it shouldn't be difficult to give them a taste of their own medicine. Who, after all, likes the Teheran regime? The Russian and Chinese and North Korean governments and the fulsome Mr Straw appear to, but there's less evidence that the Iranian people do.

The majority of Iran's population is younger than the revolution: whether or not they're as "pro-American" as is sometimes claimed, they have no memory of the Shah; all they've ever known is their ramshackle Islamic republic where the unemployment rate is currently 25 per cent. If war breaks out, those surplus young men will be in uniform and defending their homeland.

Why not tap into their excess energy right now? As the foreign terrorists have demonstrated in Iraq, you don't need a lot of local support to give the impression (at least to Tariq Ali and John Pilger) of a popular insurgency. Would it not be feasible to turn the tables and upgrade Iran's somewhat lethargic dissidents into something a little livelier? A Teheran preoccupied by internal suppression will find it harder to pull off its pretensions to regional superpower status.

Who else could we stir up? Well, did you see that story in the Sunday Telegraph? Eight of the regime's border guards have been kidnapped and threatened with decapitation by a fanatical Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan. I'm of the view that the Shia are a much better long-term bet as reformable Muslims, but given that there are six million Sunni in Iran and that they're a majority in some provinces, would it not be possible to give the regime its own Sunni Triangle?

No option is without risks, though some are overstated, including regional anger at any Western action: I doubt whether many Arab Sunni regimes really wish to live under the nuclear umbrella of a Persian Shia superpower. And, indeed, one further reason (as if you need one) to put the skids under Boy Assad in Damascus is to underline that there's a price to be paid for getting too cosy with Teheran.

But every risk has to be weighed against the certainty that Iran would use its nuclear capacity in the same way it uses its other assets - by supporting terror groups that operate against its enemies.

And Jack Straw's mullah-coddling is particularly unworthy in that, insofar as Iran has a strategy, the president's chief adviser, Hassan Abbassi, has based it on the premise that "Britain is the mother of all evils" - the evils being America, Australia, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada and New Zealand, all of which are the malign progeny of the British Empire.

"We have established a department that will take care of England," said Mr Abbassi last May. "England's demise is on our agenda." Apropos the ayatollahs, England could at least return the compliment.

Oriana
2006-01-17 04:17:34

CONU
2006-01-17 05:38:58

Din pacate,"Iranul" este afacerea Europei, Rusiei si-a Chinei...

US, nu are nici cel mai mic interes... asa ca vom avea ocazia sa-i vedem pe Francezi si nemti la "treaba"... Capitalele europene sunt pe lista tintelor de la Teheran.

Iar daca acestea vor fi incapabile sa rezolve o situatie asa cum au facut-o in Rwanda ori Darfur,.... Tel Aviv-ul va va face de rusine !

Morkova Vesela
2006-01-17 05:52:34

Magnetul mullahilor este puternic, nu incape indoiala.

Ei atrag castalene cu turbanu, dar castane de alea serioase care fac cucuie chiar si prin acoperamantul cel mai gros, mai gros chiar de 100m sub pamant unde sunt ascunse titirezele alea de la mai zice si centrifuge, cu care scot ei esenta de jihad din crema galbena pe care am vazut-o si la televizor. Mai ce mandri mai erau!

cosor ion
2006-01-17 06:13:58

Re: CNN si razboiul

roy
2006-01-17 06:26:27

Re: chibitzul

roy
2006-01-17 06:37:46

Re: Din "The Telegraph", ziar britanic

roy
2006-01-17 13:18:40

Re: Magnetul mullahilor este puternic, nu incape indoiala.

Sigur ca-i puternic, sant catziva in forumul asta care ii iubesc foarte mult.

S
2006-01-17 13:32:06

"In genunchi ma-ntorc la tine"

Dupa recunoasterea erorii (vezi Doamne, de traducere) in care cuvantul "arma atomica" a luat locul la "tehnologie atomica" si a scuzelor publice pe toate canalele lumii, CNN a beneficiat de gratia prezidentiala iraniana, fiind autorizat sa emita din Iran. Basca, o lectie de democratie iraniana asupra adevarului purtat de media.
Jenant !

Oriana
2006-01-17 13:38:59

Roy: Magnetul mullahilor este puternic, nu incape indoiala.

Oriana
2006-01-17 13:42:31

Re: "In genunchi ma-ntorc la tine" cica... "o lectie de democratie iraniana"

S
2006-01-17 14:10:11

Re: "In genunchi ma-ntorc la tine" cica... "o lectie de democratie iraniana"

Oriana
2006-01-17 14:49:40

Axa CHINA... INDIA... "OPEC-ul consumatorilor

Oriana
2006-01-17 16:33:38

"4": arba, "DACA E JUST CE FACI, FA-L DE 4 ORI" - poker-ul mortii

"Arba" in lb. araba inseamna 4. Un nr. care pare sa ingrijoreze pe multe servicii de Intelligence.

Analistii se tot chinuiesc sa gaseasca un sens din "constanta 4", care pare o coincidenta repetata in strategia TERORISMULUI islamic, bazata pe coduri, simboluri, mesaje cifrate interceptate de la principalele organizatii SALAFITE, prezente in toata Europa.

Si tot frecventand moschei si centre culturale si cartiere islamice, in Europa, s-a ajuns la macabre referinte legate de nr. 4, care se inspira de la DOCTRINA WAHABBITA (saudita), tocmai ritualul LANSAT de bin Laden !
"DACA E JUST CE FACI, FA-L DE 4 ORI"

4 au fost atentatele de la Londra, de ex, pe linga altele din lume mai putin mediatice, sustin agentii 007, 4 este mereu nr. repetat obsesiv de un imam de la Roma in sermoanele lui delirante de vineri, care se incheie mereu cu fraza:
"Fratilor, daca credeti ca ceea ce faceti voi e just, atunci repetati-l de alte 4 ori!".

Cei din Scotland Yard spun ca 4 au fost kamikaze pachistanezi, care vroiau sa deseneze simultan o CRUCE imaginara DE FOC in punctele cardinale din Londra.

Aceeasi cheie de lectura pt. analisti si in cazul atentatelor de pe 11 sept: au fost 4 AVIOANE si 4 DESTINATII.

La Madrid, pe 11 martie 2004 au fost pregatite in total 4 BOMBE, au sarit in aer 3 trenuri, dar al 4-lea nu a explodat din ghinionul teroristilot - defect tehnic.

Atacurile siucide de la Jerusalem din sept. 2001 si in Arabia Saudita in mai 2003, au fost in ambele cazuri 4 la numar, simultan, iar in anul urmator tot 4 TERORISTI au intrat in orasul YANBU, zeci de morti si 200 de raniti grav.

La Istambul in nov. 2003, au fost simultan 4 BOMBE care au ucis 63 de pers., la fel ca recentul atentat la IZMIR, unde au fost gasite iar 4 BOMBE.

In Algeria, in mai 1987 au fost tot 4 ATENTATE

In Pakistan, pe 11 nov. 1999 au fost 4 BOMBE plasate pe linga Ambasada USA.

La Kerbala in Irak, 4 BOMBE in dec. 2003

30 sept. 2004, grupul TAWID WAL JIHAD, legat de Al Zarkawi, decapitatorul, a semnat 4 ATENTATE conduse de 4 KAMIKAZE , cu 50 de morti dintre care 37 COPII, 70 de morti la Bassora.
atentate

2 iun. 2005, celule Al Qaeda revendica 4 ATENTATE in Irak, 20 de morti.

Apoi 4 BISERICI CRESTINE, 12 morti - revendicate

Lista este infinita cu acest 4, care revine ciclic in orice atentat revendicat.

Se presupune ca si in cazul Coalitiei din Irak, sunt 4 natiunile luate "la ochi" de atentate eclatante: USA, SPANIA, GB. Mai ramane ITALIA?

Combinatie, in a 4-a luna a anului, aprilie 2006 vor fi alegerile politice in Italia, cu instaurarea unui nou guvern pe urmatorii 5 ani, fara sa fim superstitiosi, dar tot iti vine un dubiu, gandindu-te la POKER-ul MORTII...>>

La maledizione del 4 che turba l' Intelligence
di Gian Marco Chiocci - Claudia Passa
http://www.ilgiornale.it/a.pic1?ID=15087

Alex2003
2006-01-17 18:50:45

Fiecare republicam

Fiecare republican care cere pornirea unui razboi impotriva Iranului, sa dea in scris dorinta lor, si sa fie recrutati ca si soldati de rind (chiar la virsta de 80), ca sa-si dovedeasca patriotismul adevarat fatsa de America.

Traiasca presedintele Bush, cel mai iubit fiu al poporului, impreuna cu Condomitsa Reich, difuzorul de idei politice al guvernului Sharon Israelianl, care conduce din umbra politica geniala al Americii. Numai genii militari pot sa ia astfel de hotariri bune.

Adrian v.D.
2006-01-17 19:16:27

Re: "In genunchi ma-ntorc la tine"

Aladin
2006-01-17 19:35:36

Ce te faci Oriana in Aprilie ? esti in voiaj ?

Oriana
2006-01-17 20:15:55

Re: Ce te faci Oriana in Aprilie ? esti in voiaj ?

S
2006-01-17 20:24:25

Re: "In genunchi ma-ntorc la tine"

Oriana
2006-01-17 20:50:36

"Iran Focus": Iran are 300 de situri nucleare

http://www.ilgiornale.it/a.pic1?ID=57732

<< Iran Focus e situl Opozitorilor iranieni.

Stirea are ca sursa pe un general din Garzile Revolutiei Islamice, Mostafa Haji-Najiar, nr. 2 al biroului politic din Corpul Militar de elite, care a facut ac. afirmatie in timpul unui SEMINAR,

precizand ca desi cheltuielile sunt elevate, siturile nucleare au fost distribuite in peste 300 de LOCALITATI iraniene, care nu se limiteaza la centrele cunoscute ISFAHAN - NATANZA - ARAK si ARDAKAN.>>

Dan Bostan
2006-01-17 21:08:37

Articol despre clovni si barbati...

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9278

Mahmoud, Kofi, and the Usual Suspects
By Jed Babbin
Published 1/17/2006 12:08:12 AM


Only a crazy person would spend months and years alternately rubbing a lamp and standing back to make way for the appearance of the duly extradited genie. After three years of trying to talk Iran out of its nuclear weapons program, Britain, France and Germany have stopped rubbing their diplomatic lamp. That is not to say they -- and we -- aren't crazy because we're now aiding and abetting the latest lamp-rubbing exercise: taking Iran before the UN Security Council. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over in the same way and expecting different results. By that criterion, America is again the host at the Mad Hatter's tea party.

The avowed purpose of taking Iran before the Security Council is to debate a motion for economic and diplomatic sanctions against it for violating its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it signed while ruled by the Shah. It is at best highly doubtful that any sanctions measure that could modify Tehran's behavior would be passed, given the dependency of so many nations on Iranian oil. But even if sanctions were passed, what makes anyone believe they would be enforced? Given the UN's track record on Iraq -- seventeen table-pounding measures demanding compliance by Saddam, none of which was enforced or even complied with by the Security Council's own members -- why should anyone believe UN action on Iran would be more severe or taken any more seriously? We simply can't.

The UN, in so many ways, resembles Hollywood. Divorced from reality as only entertainers can be, the UN issues remakes of old diplomatic performances like Hollywood remakes old movies. The first UN Middle Eastern drama was Suez, in 1956, starring Dwight Eisenhower whose unsubtle message to Europe and Israel saved the UN from much-deserved obscurity. Since then the remakes have included the 1975 "Zionism is racism" resolution starring Idi Amin (best opposing actor honors going to Pat Moynihan in a futile performance), and the 2002 Iraq resolutions starring Dubya, Kofi and Dominique de Villepin. Now, we are collaborating in a remake of the 2002 debacle with repeat performances by Kofi, Dominique and Bad Vlad Putin and starring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The only other change in the cast is the addition of Hu Jintao as Putin's funny sidekick.

We know how this is script plays out. There will be endless conferences among the Brits, French, Germans and Americans to come up with a resolution that might, just might, pass and still say something other than "pretty please" to Ahmadinejad. When the resolution is finally introduced, it will be referred to a special "working group" of Security Council members -- a.k.a. the five veto holders plus a few added helpers chosen from debuting UN gorgeous starlets such as Japan and India -- who will spend many months debating its terms and seeking something that Ahmadinejad will accept. When that fails, the vetoistas will undertake more negotiations among themselves, and have open debates on proposals while several of them -- notably Russia and France -- negotiate their own compromises with Iran, confusing and diffusing the whole idea of stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

While that subplot plays out, the Russians will continue to help Iran build and harden its nuclear facilities, selling it the TOR M-1 surface to air missile system that effectively bars any air attack against Iranian nuclear facilities by any aircraft except American B-2 and F-117 stealth aircraft. (The Russians have already sold about 30 of the TOR M-1s to Iran, and deliveries will soon begin if they haven't already. TOR M-1 features a phased array radar and SA-15 missiles mounted on a tracked vehicle, capable of engaging multiple targets at once, including missiles, precision-guided bombs as well as aircraft, and it can shoot on the move.) Some, including Chinese client-state North Korea, will continue to sell ballistic missiles and other arms to Iran. And everyone (other than the U.S.), especially China, will buy as much Iranian oil as they can.

The UN script will require that the debate in the Security Council be suspended and revived, the object being to forestall any action until after the U.S. 2008 presidential election in the hope that the new president will be more reasonable -- i.e., sufficiently French -- to let the matter drag on long enough for Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. The Iranians will play the part of Saddam better than he did. They will allow UN inspectors in and allow them to inspect everything that points to nuclear power generation and not nuclear weapons. Nobel laureate and IAEA chief Mohammed el-Baradei will report, periodically and with great drama, about tense negotiations on inspection procedures and IAEA's inability to find any damning evidence that Iran is achieving nuclear arms. Kofi Annan, in his last act as Secretary General, will go to Tehran later this year to negotiate a new deal for inspections, and proclaim Ahmadinejad a "man I can deal with." France, too, will rededicate itself to ensuring NATO takes no action, and Germany's new chancellor -- the charming Angela Merkel -- will oppose any action that might disturb the stability of the region.

Brent Scowcroft will explain that though Iran is radical, it will act in its own enlightened self-interest, and never ever nuke anyone. The new Israeli government will be unable to form itself around any action sufficient to stop Iran, and so the world will proclaim that responsibility for keeping the peace will be America's and America's alone. And, to be sure, keeping the peace and maintaining the "stability" of the Middle East will become the goal replacing the idea of preventing Iran from threatening the world with the apocalyptic vision of its president. And so it will go, on and on, into the future. Nations will buy Iranian oil, its president will say the most bellicose things to call forth the Twelfth Imam and the Islamic version of Judgment Day and no one will take him at his word. Except, perhaps, Israel and the United States.

The end of the script is still unwritten, because no one knows how long the U.S. and Israel will endure the endless diplomatic standoffs that the UN and Iran will create. We will be sunk in a diplomatic quagmire that will make the 2002-2003 UN debate on Iraq seem a decisive time for the world.

We don't know how long it will be before Iran has nuclear warheads and the ability to mate them to missiles to achieve a deliverable nuclear weapon. It may be six months from now, or two years. In any event, the time it will take to extract ourselves from the UN quagmire will be longer than it takes Iran to reach its goal. And when it does, the world will be safe only for Islamic terrorism. The latest remake of the Turtle Bay Mideast drama will end with a bang, not a whimper. Ahmadinejad would like to reprise the role Slim Pickens played in Dr. Strangelove. It would suit him right down to the ground.


TAS contributing editor Jed Babbin is the author of Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe Are Worse Than You Think (Regnery, 2004).

Mos Grigore
2006-01-17 21:28:56

Re: Ce te faci Oriana in Aprilie ? esti in voiaj ?

Dan Bostan
2006-01-17 21:31:24

Din rozosina LA Times: Tomorrow's world war today

January 16, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-ferguson16ajan16,1,1002965.column?ctrack=1&cset=true

Niall Ferguson:
Tomorrow's world war today


ARE WE LIVING through the origins of the next world war? It's certainly easy to imagine how a future historian would deal with recent events in the Middle East:

"With every passing year after the turn of the century, the instability of the Gulf region grew. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients for a conflict &#8212; far bigger in scale than the wars of 1991 or 2003 &#8212; were in place.

ADVERTISEMENT
"The first underlying cause of war was, of course, the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. The rest of the world's oil supplies were being rapidly exhausted, while the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand.

"A second precondition of war was demographic. While European fertility had fallen below the natural replacement rate in the 1970s, the decline in the Islamic world had been much slower. In Iran, the social conservatism of the 1979 revolution conspired with the high mortality of the Iran-Iraq war and the subsequent baby boom to produce, by the first decade of the new century, a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two-fifths of the population of Iran had been aged 14 or younger in 1995. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007.

"The third and perhaps most important precondition for war was cultural. Since 1979, not just Iran but the greater part of the Muslim world had been swept by a wave of religious fervor. Although few countries followed Iran down the road to theocracy, the feudal dynasties or military strongmen who had dominated Islamic politics since the 1950s came under intense religious pressure.

"The ideological cocktail that produced 'Islamism' was as potent as either of the ideologies the West had produced in the previous century &#8212; communism and fascism. Islamism was anti-Western, anti-capitalist and anti-Semitic. A revealing moment was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intemperate attack on Israel in December 2005, when he called the Holocaust a 'myth.' The state of Israel was a 'disgraceful blot,' he had previously declared, to be wiped 'off the map.'

"Prior to 2007 the Islamists had seen no alternative but to wage war against their enemies by means of terrorism. From the Gaza to Manhattan, the hero of 2001 was the suicide bomber. Yet Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, craved a more potent weapon than strapped-on explosives. He aimed to give Iran the kind of power North Korea already wielded in East Asia. The power to defy the United States. The power to obliterate America's closest regional ally.

"Under different circumstances, it would not have been difficult to thwart Ahmadinejad's nuclear weapons program. The Israelis had shown themselves capable of preemptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neoconservative commentators throughout 2006.

"But the president was advised by his secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to opt instead for diplomacy. Americans did not want to increase their military commitments overseas; they wanted to reduce them. Europeans did not want to hear that Iran was about to build its own WMD. Even if Ahmadinejad had broadcast a nuclear test live on CNN, they would have said it was a CIA trick.

"So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Having first tried appeasement, offering the Iranians economic incentives to desist, the West appealed to international agencies &#8212; the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Thanks to China's veto, however, the U.N. produced nothing but empty resolutions and ineffectual sanctions.

"Only one man might have stiffened President Bush's resolve in the crisis. But Ariel Sharon had been struck down by a stroke just as the Iranian crisis came to a head. With Israel leaderless, Ahmadinejad had a free hand.

"As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking. Perhaps, some said, Ahmadinejad was only saber-rattling because his own domestic position was so weak. Perhaps his political rivals in the Iranian clergy were on the point of getting rid of him. People crossed their fingers, hoping for a homegrown regime change in Tehran.

"This gave the Iranians all the time they needed to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium at Natanz. The dream of nuclear nonproliferation, already half-broken by Israel, Pakistan and India, was now irreparably shattered. Soon Tehran had a nuclear missile pointed at Tel Aviv. And the new Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu had a missile pointed right back at Tehran.

"The devastating thermonuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy; It marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-11 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's principle of preemption. For, if that principle had only been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear aspirations might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And then &#8212; hard though it is to imagine now &#8212; the Great Gulf War might never have happened."

Mos Grigore
2006-01-17 21:42:10

Re: Articol despre clovni si barbati.BUNA! Cartea astuia e foarte buna plenty la Amazon!

Oriana
2006-01-17 22:40:49

Greg: 44th Arrest Made in Failed London Bombings

Scorilo
2006-01-17 22:43:07

Re: "In genunchi ma-ntorc la tine" - raspunsul